Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!lisch
From: lisch@mentor.com (Ray Lischner)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Do class libraries have to be in source form (2 of 4)
Message-ID: <1989Nov22.181203.16204@mentor.com>
Date: 22 Nov 89 18:12:03 GMT
References: <177@taumet.UUCP>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Mentor Graphics Corp., Beaverton, OR
Lines: 20
In-reply-to: mike@taumet.UUCP's message of 20 Nov 89 15:33:47 GMT

In <177@taumet.UUCP>, Michael Ball puts up a question for debate:
> Are class libraries distributed in object-only
> form useful in encouraging software reuse.

He goes on to make some argument specific to C++:
> 1.  Sometimes base classes have to become virtual base classes
>     to make a class useful for multiple inheritance.
> 
> 2.  Sometimes a function should be made virtual when the original
>     class designer didn't do so.

Well, I agree completely.  Due to the nature of C++, there are a lot
of things the original designer must do differently when using virtual
base classes instead of non-virtual base classes.  It is much easier
to DESIGN a class library without using virtual base classes.  It is
often much easier to USE a class library if it uses virtual base classes.

Without access to the sources, a class library can quickly become useless.
-- 
Ray Lischner        UUCP: {uunet,tektronix,decwrl}!sequent!mntgfx!lisch